US920 PHL-AUA Diverts to CLT after declaring emergency
May 25, 2013, 12:02 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IAD/PIT
Programs: UA 2P
Posts: 129
US920 PHL-AUA Diverts to CLT after declaring emergency
A friend who was on US920, flying on a 757-200, just told me that after declaring emergency, their flight had to divert to Charlotte and thankfully landed safely. From what he says though it seems pretty serious and a pretty scary experience.
He told me that "the fuel injection stopped working properly and they couldn't balance the plane, so we landed crooked and really rough after emergency diverting and flying as fast as possible to Charlotte. The plane was leaning the whole time."
Anyone have any more information on what happened? I'm glad everyone's okay as far as I can tell, but seems somewhat serious.
He told me that "the fuel injection stopped working properly and they couldn't balance the plane, so we landed crooked and really rough after emergency diverting and flying as fast as possible to Charlotte. The plane was leaning the whole time."
Anyone have any more information on what happened? I'm glad everyone's okay as far as I can tell, but seems somewhat serious.
May 25, 2013, 7:40 pm
#2
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: PHL
Programs: AA EXP, Marriott Lifetime Plat, SPG Plat, AMEX Plat, Hertz PC, Travels too Much Platinum
Posts: 3,290
See http://avherald.com/h?article=462d0378&opt=0 and reply #28 on http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo....main/5773046/
Sounds like the crew did what they were trained to do, got things under control from a safety perspective, and then determined that CLT was the better place to divert to versus the original selection of ILM (Wilmington NC) to accommodate passengers.
A pilot would have to weigh in on how serious this actually was; BoeingBoy is our resident pilot on here and though he was most recently a 737 pilot he may be able to provide more.
Sounds like the crew did what they were trained to do, got things under control from a safety perspective, and then determined that CLT was the better place to divert to versus the original selection of ILM (Wilmington NC) to accommodate passengers.
A pilot would have to weigh in on how serious this actually was; BoeingBoy is our resident pilot on here and though he was most recently a 737 pilot he may be able to provide more.
May 25, 2013, 11:05 pm
#3
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: High Point, NC
Programs: None
Posts: 9,171
Two potential causes that aren't directly related...
Fuel injection is similiar to what modern cars use except turbine engines don't have closed combustion chambers - the fuel is injected into the core engine where it mixes with compressed air and is ignited. A "fuel injection" could be a problem with an injector to the engine quitting - the latter not mentioned yet.
Presumably a balance problem, as described, is due to a lateral imbalance in wing tank fuel quantity. There is an amount of imbalance that normal flight controls can correct for, but beyond that you could have a bank angle.
I never flew the 757, but would be surprised if there wasn't a crossfeed capability built into the fuel system - either wing tank can supply the engine on the other side. Otherwise, an engine out would pretty quickly result in a fuel imbalance - I can imagine losing an engine half way across the Atlantic and the fuel imbalance getting so great that loss of control could result. Boeing takes great care to make sure that single faults don't result in those situations.
In other words, there's more to this story than we know now.
Jim
Fuel injection is similiar to what modern cars use except turbine engines don't have closed combustion chambers - the fuel is injected into the core engine where it mixes with compressed air and is ignited. A "fuel injection" could be a problem with an injector to the engine quitting - the latter not mentioned yet.
Presumably a balance problem, as described, is due to a lateral imbalance in wing tank fuel quantity. There is an amount of imbalance that normal flight controls can correct for, but beyond that you could have a bank angle.
I never flew the 757, but would be surprised if there wasn't a crossfeed capability built into the fuel system - either wing tank can supply the engine on the other side. Otherwise, an engine out would pretty quickly result in a fuel imbalance - I can imagine losing an engine half way across the Atlantic and the fuel imbalance getting so great that loss of control could result. Boeing takes great care to make sure that single faults don't result in those situations.
In other words, there's more to this story than we know now.
Jim
May 26, 2013, 4:02 am
#4
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2
Two potential causes that aren't directly related...
Fuel injection is similiar to what modern cars use except turbine engines don't have closed combustion chambers - the fuel is injected into the core engine where it mixes with compressed air and is ignited. A "fuel injection" could be a problem with an injector to the engine quitting - the latter not mentioned yet.
Presumably a balance problem, as described, is due to a lateral imbalance in wing tank fuel quantity. There is an amount of imbalance that normal flight controls can correct for, but beyond that you could have a bank angle.
I never flew the 757, but would be surprised if there wasn't a crossfeed capability built into the fuel system - either wing tank can supply the engine on the other side. Otherwise, an engine out would pretty quickly result in a fuel imbalance - I can imagine losing an engine half way across the Atlantic and the fuel imbalance getting so great that loss of control could result. Boeing takes great care to make sure that single faults don't result in those situations.
In other words, there's more to this story than we know now.
Jim
Fuel injection is similiar to what modern cars use except turbine engines don't have closed combustion chambers - the fuel is injected into the core engine where it mixes with compressed air and is ignited. A "fuel injection" could be a problem with an injector to the engine quitting - the latter not mentioned yet.
Presumably a balance problem, as described, is due to a lateral imbalance in wing tank fuel quantity. There is an amount of imbalance that normal flight controls can correct for, but beyond that you could have a bank angle.
I never flew the 757, but would be surprised if there wasn't a crossfeed capability built into the fuel system - either wing tank can supply the engine on the other side. Otherwise, an engine out would pretty quickly result in a fuel imbalance - I can imagine losing an engine half way across the Atlantic and the fuel imbalance getting so great that loss of control could result. Boeing takes great care to make sure that single faults don't result in those situations.
In other words, there's more to this story than we know now.
Jim
May 26, 2013, 6:50 am
#5
Join Date: May 2003
Location: At This Point, Only G*d Knows!
Posts: 3,467
Two potential causes that aren't directly related...
Fuel injection is similiar to what modern cars use except turbine engines don't have closed combustion chambers - the fuel is injected into the core engine where it mixes with compressed air and is ignited. A "fuel injection" could be a problem with an injector to the engine quitting - the latter not mentioned yet.
Presumably a balance problem, as described, is due to a lateral imbalance in wing tank fuel quantity. There is an amount of imbalance that normal flight controls can correct for, but beyond that you could have a bank angle.
I never flew the 757, but would be surprised if there wasn't a crossfeed capability built into the fuel system - either wing tank can supply the engine on the other side. Otherwise, an engine out would pretty quickly result in a fuel imbalance - I can imagine losing an engine half way across the Atlantic and the fuel imbalance getting so great that loss of control could result. Boeing takes great care to make sure that single faults don't result in those situations.
In other words, there's more to this story than we know now.
Jim
Fuel injection is similiar to what modern cars use except turbine engines don't have closed combustion chambers - the fuel is injected into the core engine where it mixes with compressed air and is ignited. A "fuel injection" could be a problem with an injector to the engine quitting - the latter not mentioned yet.
Presumably a balance problem, as described, is due to a lateral imbalance in wing tank fuel quantity. There is an amount of imbalance that normal flight controls can correct for, but beyond that you could have a bank angle.
I never flew the 757, but would be surprised if there wasn't a crossfeed capability built into the fuel system - either wing tank can supply the engine on the other side. Otherwise, an engine out would pretty quickly result in a fuel imbalance - I can imagine losing an engine half way across the Atlantic and the fuel imbalance getting so great that loss of control could result. Boeing takes great care to make sure that single faults don't result in those situations.
In other words, there's more to this story than we know now.
Jim
Dan
Jun 2, 2013, 8:40 pm
#6
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 4
A friend who was on US920, flying on a 757-200, just told me that after declaring emergency, their flight had to divert to Charlotte and thankfully landed safely. From what he says though it seems pretty serious and a pretty scary experience.
He told me that "the fuel injection stopped working properly and they couldn't balance the plane, so we landed crooked and really rough after emergency diverting and flying as fast as possible to Charlotte. The plane was leaning the whole time."
Anyone have any more information on what happened? I'm glad everyone's okay as far as I can tell, but seems somewhat serious.
He told me that "the fuel injection stopped working properly and they couldn't balance the plane, so we landed crooked and really rough after emergency diverting and flying as fast as possible to Charlotte. The plane was leaning the whole time."
Anyone have any more information on what happened? I'm glad everyone's okay as far as I can tell, but seems somewhat serious.
I was on this flight in row 12, Isle seat and had a clear view of what was going on before we took off. I am thankful, of course, that we landed safely, but I am extremely upset with US Airways.
The events as I recall them:
Boarding began at 7:10 am for our scheduled 7:45 departure
Maintenance (many of them) kept coming on the plane to speak with the Pilot.
What appeared to be US Airways administrators or supervisors came onto the plane to speak with the Pilot.
This went on for nearly 3 hours.
We were told that the plane had undergone maintenance all night and the Pilot had questions about the log.
We were told that said maintenance was "benign" ya know... over head bins, tray backs etc..... nothing to worry about.
Eventually the "logs" were delivered by 3 maintenance men and the tie wearing probably an administrator guy.
Take off was rough.... and there was a "smell".
The flight attendants kept getting calls from the flight deck ... they would turn their back to the cabin while on the phone and say nothing to the passengers.
About 2 hours into the flight the young man sitting in the window seat said the thought the plane was turning around.
The flight attendants were rude, short and seemed agitated. Heck, I should have known something was up when the duty free cart didn't come out... you know they love to push those items on international flights.... they knew that plane wasn't going to Aruba and frankly probably didn't know if we were going to land at all.
At about the 2 hour 20 minute mark, the pilot announced we were headed to Charlotte because the "sonars" were not working and as a result the plane can't fly over water. We were over water now - we could see it out the windows.
We now knew that that BS about the benign maintenance was a lie and many of the passengers were highly upset and I think we were all very afraid.
About 20 minutes later we could see land. What a relief, so we thought because now the pilot told us that we have "fuel and engine problems". A 2nd confirmation that we were lied to in Philly.
We eventually landed a very hard, fast & thankfully safe landing.
What really irks me is that we were lied to. They knew something was wrong with the maintenance log and US Airways made a decision for all of us.
I do not think that 1 passenger on that plane would have agreed to fly on that flight had we known the truth.
Terrified Passenger from US Airways flight 920
Jun 2, 2013, 9:14 pm
#7
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: High Point, NC
Programs: None
Posts: 9,171
Just a couple of thoughts...
1 - it sounds like the captain was pressured to accept the plane - a US bad, but the pilot shouldn't have let the pressure replace his/her judgement.
2 - I have no idea what "sonars" really was - planes don't have them (does the military still operate sub hunter planes which deploy sonar pods?). Several systems are needed for "overwater" flight but sonar isn't one of them. It was probably a term you were unfamiliar with that sounded something like "sonar", but not knowing what it's impossible to know what effect it would have if it ceased working.
3 - "Overwater" in this context doesn't literally mean overwater or every plane flying into BOS would need special equipment. Depending on where the plane was located and equipped, it means more than 50, 100, or IIRC 150 miles from shore. Then you get to ETOPS requirements for flight in oceanic airspace.
4 - No one has yet said whether the emergency briefing was given. If not then the crew expected a relatively normal landing. Hard landings happen - try driving your car at top speed and just barely brushing a concrete wall while turning. Fast landings happen - perhaps ATC kept the plane fast/high longer than desired.
Jim
1 - it sounds like the captain was pressured to accept the plane - a US bad, but the pilot shouldn't have let the pressure replace his/her judgement.
2 - I have no idea what "sonars" really was - planes don't have them (does the military still operate sub hunter planes which deploy sonar pods?). Several systems are needed for "overwater" flight but sonar isn't one of them. It was probably a term you were unfamiliar with that sounded something like "sonar", but not knowing what it's impossible to know what effect it would have if it ceased working.
3 - "Overwater" in this context doesn't literally mean overwater or every plane flying into BOS would need special equipment. Depending on where the plane was located and equipped, it means more than 50, 100, or IIRC 150 miles from shore. Then you get to ETOPS requirements for flight in oceanic airspace.
4 - No one has yet said whether the emergency briefing was given. If not then the crew expected a relatively normal landing. Hard landings happen - try driving your car at top speed and just barely brushing a concrete wall while turning. Fast landings happen - perhaps ATC kept the plane fast/high longer than desired.
Jim
Jun 2, 2013, 9:37 pm
#8
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 4
BoeingBoy :
1. Agreed. I believe he was pressured to accept the plane. I also believe it is a possibility that the logs were changed to meet the captains criteria. US Airways ground personnel came on that plane at least 6 times. The possible/probable administrator at least 3 times.
2/3 Perhaps I misheard the Captain referring to "sonars"...or maybe I didn't and that is in fact what he said..... I'm pretty sure that was the word and he clearly said "this plane cannot fly over water"..... every passenger on that plane took that to mean that we cannot fly over actual water and we were. I don't know what the actual problem was, I can only relay what I heard.
4. We were not given emergency landing instructions.
Back to 2/3 - I'm just a passenger and have no idea about ETOPS and so forth.
Thank you for your reply. I've just returned home from Aruba and googled thinking I might be able to find more info about what really happened to us up there and found this post so I thought I would share what happened from the passengers perspective.
I am firm in my belief that US Airways knew something was not right and took that plane up jeopardizing every person on that plane.
1. Agreed. I believe he was pressured to accept the plane. I also believe it is a possibility that the logs were changed to meet the captains criteria. US Airways ground personnel came on that plane at least 6 times. The possible/probable administrator at least 3 times.
2/3 Perhaps I misheard the Captain referring to "sonars"...or maybe I didn't and that is in fact what he said..... I'm pretty sure that was the word and he clearly said "this plane cannot fly over water"..... every passenger on that plane took that to mean that we cannot fly over actual water and we were. I don't know what the actual problem was, I can only relay what I heard.
4. We were not given emergency landing instructions.
Back to 2/3 - I'm just a passenger and have no idea about ETOPS and so forth.
Thank you for your reply. I've just returned home from Aruba and googled thinking I might be able to find more info about what really happened to us up there and found this post so I thought I would share what happened from the passengers perspective.
I am firm in my belief that US Airways knew something was not right and took that plane up jeopardizing every person on that plane.
Jun 3, 2013, 10:16 am
#10
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: PHX
Posts: 3,796
Could be that it was a problem pulling fuel from one of the wing tanks. In that case, they would have to open the crossfeed to keep both engines running off one tank. And it would lead to an unbalanced condition.
Jun 3, 2013, 11:40 am
#11
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: AA Plat, Bonvoy Gold
Posts: 425
Question: who told you this about the maintenance?
Jun 3, 2013, 12:58 pm
#12
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: High Point, NC
Programs: None
Posts: 9,171
BoeingBoy :
2/3 Perhaps I misheard the Captain referring to "sonars"...or maybe I didn't and that is in fact what he said..... I'm pretty sure that was the word and he clearly said "this plane cannot fly over water"..... every passenger on that plane took that to mean that we cannot fly over actual water and we were. I don't know what the actual problem was, I can only relay what I heard.
2/3 Perhaps I misheard the Captain referring to "sonars"...or maybe I didn't and that is in fact what he said..... I'm pretty sure that was the word and he clearly said "this plane cannot fly over water"..... every passenger on that plane took that to mean that we cannot fly over actual water and we were. I don't know what the actual problem was, I can only relay what I heard.
4. We were not given emergency landing instructions.
Back to 2/3 - I'm just a passenger and have no idea about ETOPS and so forth.
For this discussion, there are three classes of "overwater". Oceanic airspace requires ETOPS, non-oceanic is the aforementioned 100 or 150 miles (IIRC) maximum from land (rafts required), and within 50 miles of land (considered the same as over land).
Jim
Jun 4, 2013, 10:30 am
#13
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: PHL, NYC
Programs: AA PLT, DL SLV, UA SLV, MR LTT, HH DIA
Posts: 10,067
US920 PHL-AUA Diverts to CLT after declaring emergency
920Passenger,
If you feel US created a potential dangerous scenario, contact the Philadelphia FSDO (flight standards district office). They will be happy to investigate US maintenance procedures at PHL.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/phl/contact/
If you feel US created a potential dangerous scenario, contact the Philadelphia FSDO (flight standards district office). They will be happy to investigate US maintenance procedures at PHL.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/phl/contact/
Jun 6, 2013, 10:16 pm
#14
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 4
Both the flight attendants and the captain. The captain did not provide details as I recall. It was the flight attendants who said the maintaince issues were things like seat back trays, overhead bins & toilet flushing type of stuff.... nothing major that would interfere with the safety of the plane.
Jun 6, 2013, 10:19 pm
#15
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 4
920Passenger,
If you feel US created a potential dangerous scenario, contact the Philadelphia FSDO (flight standards district office). They will be happy to investigate US maintenance procedures at PHL.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...o/phl/contact/
If you feel US created a potential dangerous scenario, contact the Philadelphia FSDO (flight standards district office). They will be happy to investigate US maintenance procedures at PHL.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...o/phl/contact/